Comment on " Public lands ". Typically the club regardless of it be a shooting club, archery club or model airplane club will enter a lease agreement with the county or state agency that oversees the land. Regardless of the lease agreement is for $1 or $1M that club becomes The tenant of the property and can set rules as they deem appropriate. Typically the county will have provisions added to the contract. At SCCMAS in Morgan Hill Ca. the provisions were that the wetlands at the north end be not overflown and that people using the bike trail adjacent to the flying field be allowed the use of the restroom facilities. At SVSS in Davis Ca. the county asked that the club not allow any IC engines nor rotorcraft. The #1 provision is that all who use the facility be AMA members. With new CBO's on the horizon this could change.

The Sacramento Area Modelers had such an incident where they felt the need to refund a member his membership dues and revoke his membership. He tried the " this is county property " route and lost. Once on the field when he showed upend proceeded to assemble his airplane, refused to leave so the police were called. Upon arrival the police informed him he was trespassing and escorted him off the property. He tried legal action and lost.

@ Franklin:

I expect you're familiar with Fifth Amendment provisions regarding the taking of private property for public use without compensation. I think a case could be made that forcing private property owners to admit members of the general public on their land for the purpose of gaining access to a FRIA amounts to such a "taking".

Furthermore, doing away with FRIAs forces the retirement of all the equipment of 200,000 hobbyists. That's a "taking" as well. Forcing the closure of small manufacturers and retailers who manufacture and sell ARF and BNF models is also a "taking". Maybe the FAA needs to calculate the costs of paying compensation to all these owners, manufacturers, and retailers?

"Cui bono?" You asked in other threads. Who benefits if you get your way? Who benefits if there are no FRIAs and the only legally available model aircraft are ready-to-fly UAS "systems" and "UAS kits" which must be sold with transmitters?

Who benefits -- besides the Chinese?

As someone who's concerned about the retirement of equipment owned by the 800,000 who are NOT members of a CBO, I cannot support FRIA as written. Because it is effectively either a government mandate to retire the equipment a group four times the size of AMA, a "take" as you say, or a government mandate to join a private dues collecting organization. Who benefits from doing it my way? The overwhelming majority of recreational sUAS flyers.

As for the private property thing? Nothing says they have to ask to become a FRIA. On the other hand, if they want to be an FRIA, then if I get my way they have to allow EVERYONE to fly there - without regard for membership status.

However, I'm content to raise the points to the regulators and let them decide. It'll be a question of who matters more? The 200,000 members of AMA or the 800,000 non-members.

"Who benefits from doing it my way? The overwhelming majority of recreational sUAS flyers."

Nope.

Mandatory retirement numbers with FRIA: 800,000

Mandatory retirement numbers with no FRIAs: 800,000 + 200,000 = 1 million.

That's because in the real world, forced public access to FRIAs won't work. Clubs cannot handle the burden and landowners won't give permission. So the club fields will close.

And again, most of the 800,000 likely aren't interested in FRIAs anyway.

If AMA wants to act like a big shot (FRIAs), they better be prepared to deliver like a big shot. And that means public access.

Perhaps because the real problem is that people do not see $75 in tangible value for the annual tithe to "Taj-Muncie." Given that half of each membership dollar is spent on HQ staff and the magazine, I can't say they're wrong. A lot more tooth to tail would be a vast improvement. Maybe work on that and they would join.

Changing the subject are we?

You've stated that the likely effect of your proposed FRIA changes would be the FAA dropping the concept altogether. Your 800,000 imaginary friends still get no place to play. So it's Viet Nam all over again -- hamstrung by your rules of engagement (the phony equal protection argument), you destroy the thing you were trying to protect in order to "save" it.

You seem convinced that the FRIA concept is an AMA scheme to boost membership. I don't think so. I think it's the bone the FAA threw traditional model fliers to make the Remote ID poison go down easier. Well, this puppy will take a bone, as long as it gets my nose under the tent. Regulations are living things, and once the FRIA concept is on the books it can be morphed into something we all can use.

But if you succeed in strangling the baby in the cradle - everybody loses. Don't let your personal beefs with a few AMA members and clubs lead you to do that.

Not at all. Just looking at root cause of what drove AMA to float that idea with FAA. It's a very thinly veiled second attempt at forcing some to become members who otherwise would not.

Disagree. Once FAA sees the FRIA for what it is, an AMA "suggestion" that was nothing more than a duplicitous attempt to create compulsory membership - the FAA may well come up with an alternative.

There are $60,000,000 a year in reasons why I think it is an AMA scheme to boost membership. Especially given their recent whining about budget cuts and admission by CFO that there are only 110,000 PAYING members. But you're free to believe what you want, though the evidence supporting my thesis is strong and well documented (IRS filings)

You're a brand new member here. Joined just this month and only recently made your 10th post. How is it you're so keenly aware of what might be motivating me? Or should I just say welcome back Porcia?

I'm a "lurker" who has reluctantly chosen to become engaged because the FRIA concept is that important. If my club field doesn't become a FRIA, I lose. Big Time. As Red Green says, "This is the worst kind of discrimination -- it's against US!"

You haven't been exactly private about your motivations, so don't be surprised if interested parties pick up on them. I've watched you transform from a zealous safety advocate into a partisan with an agenda.

If you have a viable alternative - and forcing private clubs to become public parks isn't it - why not present it for discussion?

Ok. Whatever. I'm sceptical, but if that's your story.

FRIAs are one of just three options for ALL recreational flyers, and the ONLY one that does not involve equipment upgrades or reprogramming. And given that many of the sUAS owned by the 800,000 non-members cannot be reprogrammed, this is their ONLY option. Thus the FRIAs should be viewed by FAA as public airports and, as a condition of designation as such, MUST allow any citizen to use them without regard to membership in one or more PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organizations.

"FRIAs are one of just three options for ALL recreational flyers, and the ONLY one that does not involve equipment upgrades or reprogramming. "

On paper, yes. In the real world, FRIAs are the only practical option for operators of existing UAS:
- The NPRM requires anyone installing Standard Remote ID in a new or existing UAS to qualify as a "UAS Producer". This doesn't just mean filing paperwork; it means performing system-level integration testing proving the Remote ID equipment functions as designed and retaining the results for two years. It means performing periodic "audits" on all RID equipped UAS and reporting any functional issues to the FAA. The NPRM specifically states this is intended for commercial entities; the FAA does not want hobbyists retrofitting RID into existing platforms.

-Limited Remote ID has the same drawbacks. More seriously, Limited RID is a joke for fixed-wing aircraft. A kinematic analysis of a simple traffic pattern shows that it can't be executed within the 400 foot "bubble" at a speed greater than about 27 MPH. Looking at typical park flyer wing loadings, only sailplanes and ultra-micro planes (which are under the 0.55 lb limit anyway) will meet the speed criterion. And that's without considering the effect of flying "three mistakes high" -- which quickly shrinks the "bubble" even more once the model is over 100 foot altitude.

Therefore FRIAs are the only PRACTICAL option for ALL "legacy UAS". And as we've previously discussed, trying to force private clubs to become public parks will only REDUCE the number of available FRIAs.

It is far more reasonable -- and constructive -- to lobby the FAA to extend FRIA eligibility to non-CBO entities and individuals with suitable properties. Maybe even REAL "public" FRIAs in PUBLIC places like parks.

Franklin, here's a test case so you can educate us all about how your proposal would work in practice. From this thread:

Rant on FAA and why I won't become an AMA member

Seems like he's one of your 800,000 who doesn't belong to the AMA. Has a pretty sweet deal as I read it:

"I have built and flown models since 1973. I was an AMA member one year and visited AMA sanctioned clubs in Cocoa FL and Sebastian FL. I didn't like the atmosphere or the lack of support. It was all about rules that went overboard. It's quite similar to the forum threads. People argue. People want to be always right, and make sure someone else is always wrong. It's been 15 years since I threw out my single season AMA card, $75 at the time. I don't even think about it anymore, until today. If you have access to old Dave Platt's field in Palm Bay FL like I do, it's free and full of similar minded folks that enjoy the essence of the hobby as it once was. Sharing the experience. Supporting one another. Genuine Camaraderie and friends that have stayed in touch with me since I reactivated in 2003 after moving here. People used to have concerns back in the 72Mhz days about having a plane shot down. That's no longer a concern. People had concerns about safety, yet not one injury has occurred here. Many have died of old age though. The numbers have gone down at this field, giving me more flight time and the core of remaining "members" that come are the nicest people anchored in the hobby to enjoy it and not talk about all the politics or even FAA. No FAA police with K-9 dogs chasing us off. It's remote and we like it that way. We are givers, not takers. You're welcome to come in and visit to experience a field where everyone is equal, no one appointed over another, no one pays anyone a dime to be there. Of course, you got to get away from your keyboard and bring an airplane if you still own any. We're past the age of ego driven attitudes and watching people act self appointed over the next guy. Wouldn't it be nice to find a forum with the same ethics? AMA in my opinion provided no benefit as FAA took control over this drone craze that attacks the old airplane hobby as it once was. I'm just fortunate to be in a place that is isolated from all of this drama. Who wants a field that resembles the arguing and posts found in this thread? We sure don't and that's why we go here. It's quiet. It's fun. Hope you guys can work it out for yourselves.

"Check out that asphalt runway! We can take off and land into the north, south, east, and west. Wind direction is never a problem. It can be fast, it can be loud. No one is going to whine about it to anyone here. Mufflers optional. Police will even stop in from time to time and watch, and if you're friendly, they'll even hit your plane with radar and give you your speed. We like that too.
The Cocoa sanction field, flies over the city dump and they can smell all the garbage I throw away. https://www.irks.org/. AMA did wonders for them. I crack up laughing reading their landfill entry procedure posted on their website because you can smell that dump from the interstate, what's it like to get right up close and fly facing it with a breeze? I guess someone shares their jar of Vicks VaporRub you can smear under your nose like they do in the movies just before an autopsy?

"Valkarie Airport is 2 miles from my house, and you're certain to lose your model with 5' tall grass you cannot enter off each side of the busted up abandoned runway they use, and it's probably not safe to do so. I think 2 are stupid enough to actually go there, with planes you'd probably consider throwing away perhaps or have nothing invested? Our field is pristine by comparison. I bring my RV sometimes, always a table, and even a BBQ grill to make a day of it. I can buy a lot of steaks with those AMA dollars."

As written, the NPRM would require him to join a CBO in order to apply for a FRIA at his location. Obviously he wouldn't like it if the only option is the AMA.

But how is your proposal different? As I understand it, you don't propose to do away with the requirement for CBO membership for FRIA applicants. So you would make him join a CBO, and THEN throw the site open to the general public?

But what happens then? The public gets to play, but HE still has to pay each year in order to keep the FRIA open? Is that your idea of "EQUAL protection of the laws?"

I contend that opening FRIA access to the general public logically requires allowing any member of the general public to file a FRIA application. I could support that, actually -- but it takes away the stick you want to beat the AMA to death with.

Let's see you weasel out of this one!

No. My point to the regulators will be that government requiring membership in a CBO to use a FRIA will be problematic, and a loss in the court on that issue could throw the rule into chaos. So IF the concept of a FRIA is to be part of the rule, the only way to do it and avoid legal challenges will be to allow any citizen to use them WITHOUT a requirement for membership in ANY private dues collecting organization. In other words, NO CBO membership requirement for the gentleman in your example. IF FRIAs are to exist, he can use them. No need to join anything.

Nope. IF the FRIA is to be part of the rule, I advocate allowing any citizen to use them. No membership required.

Actually, what I expect the FAA will realize is that the FRIA concept is unworkable in current form. Allowing anyone to apply for one anywhere will be too complex an administratively burdensome. Therefore, the only option will be one of the other two. Though we haven't discussed it here, I have issues with aspects of those as well. But I think they're fixable .. relatively easily.

So. Big picture. I'm hoping to help the FAA stick a fork in the FRIAs, make some minor changes to the equipment rules / producer rules, and set conditions to move SOONER to an everything flying has Remote ID in one form or another ... which is exactly where the FAA wants to go.

"So. Big picture. I'm hoping to help the FAA stick a fork in the FRIAs, make some minor changes to the equipment rules / producer rules, and set conditions to move SOONER to an everything flying has Remote ID in one form or another ... which is exactly where the FAA wants to go."

OIOW -- you want to ground all of our current equipment with no possibility of retrofit.

And you'd prefer to do this sooner rather than later.

And you believe that's the FAA's agenda as well.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that this is where his "make some minor changes to the equipment rules / producer rules" comes into play. In other words one change negates the other. Simplifies everything for the FAA and Franklin gets his way with the AMA.

Not correct. No FRIAs. Simplify equipment requirements so RemoteID on everything is easier. Nothing grounded.

"Not correct. No FRIAs. Simplify equipment requirements so RemoteID on everything is easier. Nothing grounded."

Sorry, that doesn't jive with the FAA's stated vision:

"The FAA anticipates that most UAS produced will be consumer or professional grade, fully-assembled UAS from a commercial manufacturer."

So much for the 800,000 users you were trying to "help". As you stated, their equipment won't be reprogrammed or upgraded because it can't. With no FRIAs, it's all junk.

Also, thanks for admitting the "equal protection" nonsense was just a rhetorical device to torpedo the FRIA concept.

Simplified compliance might have been a viable option before the reg writers got started. It's too late for that -- the proposal is on the table. For legacy systems, it's FRIAs or nothing.

Multiple places throughout the document the FAA said they invite comments on various parts, and I think they'd welcome a better understanding. One would think the AMA would have educated them in all those meetings, but apparently not. However, perhaps once they got the FRIAs and saw the potential windfall the forced membership would bring, they stopped arguing for anyone else. But I will.

And if it becomes "FRIAs or nothing," then it is indeed an equal protection thing. AMA would just have to figure out how to ensure they're open to everyone w/o being members. Again, if they weren't spending so much on Taj-Muncie, that money could go into the FRIAs to offset maintenance costs. If they weren't spending so much money on HQ staff, that money could go into the FRIAs. If they weren't repeatedly losing money on the magazines, that money could go into the FRIAs. And ultimately, if the clubs are such a wonderful thing, then surely once being exposed to that welcoming environment, the non-members will WANT to become members! I see this as a chance for the clubs to show just how great they are! Prove the value. Etc.

And of course, if it is truly an insurance thing, then a pro-rata amount for insurance - about 17% of the dues paid historically, or about $13 dollars a year for an insurance only option.

Span = 29-1/4". Weight = 12.8oz.

It's over the 0.55 lb limit, so it has to be registered. With no FRIA option, it has to be modified with Remote ID.

Standard Remote ID is not an option. It's too small to carry the additional weight, and too internally cramped for more components.

Limited Remote ID won't work either. Wing loading is 12.5 oz/sq ft. Both analysis and actual flying experience show it would be very difficult to keep within the 400' "bubble". Even the instruction sheet claims the minimum required flying area is a 600' radius!

So with no FRIA, this aircraft is grounded. Not just this specific one of course - but an entire class of model aircraft with similar specifications and characteristics.

I don't buy the claim that FRIAs are an AMA scheme to boost membership. No evidence of that has been produced, and I haven't seen an AMA statement claiming it was their idea. Anybody can join the CBO of their choice and apply for a FRIA -- or even start their own CBO so they become eligible.

And it is neither "equal" nor "protection" when someone has to pay to join a CBO, then do the work to set up a FRIA, only to be compelled to throw the gates open to everyone else free of charge.

I'm beginning to see why the kulaks shot their cattle instead of letting them be confiscated by the Food Army...

After some consideration, and initial agreement as to the problem of access to FRIA's.....I'm pretty much coming down on the side of "Too bad...!"

Here is my State, virtually all bodies of water are "public". But access to get to them is not guaranteed. We are granted that by public bodies that decided to buy/take land and build boat ramps. There are many that have no public access. Either you have to trespass to get to them, or pay a fee to a private ramp owner, if there is one.
If RID is going to be a reality - concentrate on the easing of the requirements for RID compliance and use. Simplify them so it becomes essentially a black box to install, and easily register with the FAA. Probably even integrated into RX's. Suggest as to how to streamline (or just drop) the whole "internet" thing.
If one simply cannot do that to a model, use a FRIA. But know that you likely will have to pay some kind of a "launch fee" to use it.
We've gotten into this mess by the Park Flyer problem carried to the extreme - I can fly anywhere, so I will......and there are a bazillion of us doing it.....

"If one simply cannot do that to a model, use a FRIA. But know that you likely will have to pay some kind of a "launch fee" to use it."

You've missed the point, If Franklin gets his way, there will be no FRIAs. In the name of "equal protection" he's proposing that since not everyone can use them, then NO ONE can have one.

Of course, we can ask the FAA for anything we want in our own comments. I'm planning to ask for the following:

- Expanded FRIA application period
- Opening FRIA eligibility to non-CBO entities and private individuals
- Allowing temporary FRIAs, for contests, airshows and other special events
- Eliminating the rule that once a FRIA is terminated, even by request of the CBO, that it can't be reestablished
- Consideration of additional FRIAs based on the distance between them (so no one has to drive too far)
- Making FRIAs a permanent part of the airspace system, not a temporary expedient
- A higher weight threshold for the UAS registration requirement, for fixed-wing aircraft flown within visual line of sight
- Provision for "modular means of compliance" -- drop-in RID compliant components that a builder can install himself. The burden of "proof of compliance" being on the MANUFACTURER, where it belongs.

I may not get everything I ask for. But anything I get is a "win" for model aviation.

I actually agree with two of those. The rest, IMO, are non-starters because the stated goal of FAA is eventually EVERYTHING will have remote id. As the first several do not ultimately lead to that goal, I believe the FAA will reject such suggestions.

However, the modular compliance is the long term solution. I can support that.

"I actually agree with two of those...the modular compliance is the long term solution."

I could live with that, but ONLY if I get the weight limit I want, and ONLY if the FAA makes modular compliance simple and convenient enough for me. There's no guarantee of either of those things.

Plus, other stakeholders will likely push back against both of these. And the FAA isn't likely to allow modular compliance without some kind of "tamper resistance". I think that can be accomplished with product activation keys provided once the system is connected and transmitting over a USS - but the FAA may not agree. Their idea of "tamper resistance" may involve me bringing my fuselage to a "service center" and having some intern shove the RID box in followed by several ounces of epoxy so I can't dig it out.

The FRIA option is already in the NPRM, so why would I oppose it? I see it as benefitting both the FAA and UAS operators. UAS being flown safely at fixed sites are NOT being flown haphazardly around parks and farms, and the sites can be easily avoided by commercial UAS.

Finally, while the FAA can provide for modular compliance, they aren't in the hardware business. The first RID systems on the market are likely to be those adapted from commercial UAS. Some kinds of models (large gassers for example) have special requirements (shock and fuel resistance) that commercial users don't. Equipment for these models could take years to develop or be prohibitively expensive. Another reason why FRIAs will be needed for an extended period -- maybe decades.

I can see where the FAA may require a CBO to offer non CBO members an insurance only option, while still allowing the local club to charge membership. The difference being a CBO has an obligation to the FAA for granting their charter clubs FRIA status, while the local clubs are actually providing grounds maintenance to their members as well as insurance to the property owner.

There are a few really big problems with this proposal, just as many of you have pointed out. But at the same time there are a lot of things that have not been pointed out.

• Airspace is owned, by the land owner.
• The FAA can not take airspace without compensation.

All of us here know that this is a really odd thing they are proposing, but I don't think many people realize what they are doing isn't really legal.

If this proposal goes thru,

• It will take airspace rights away with no compensation. And airspace rights are worth far more than the FAA will ever tell you. In some areas it is worth more than the land under it, far more.
• There will be more FAA rules, regulations, and costs on a toy RC, than ultralights. Ultralights are the most dangerous FAA class there is, they kill one person every 6 days and can easily cross boarders loaded. (there isn't much money to be made, so they ignore it)
• RC will pay to kick start the ID system for the shipping industry. The current amount registered drones will offset costs that way until drone shipping far out numbers RC. There is a reason there are no million hour calculations in the proposal.
• All state laws about drones will have to be nullified. There are very few states that you can fly anything near a house, people, over livestock, a road, etc. These laws were put in place because the FAA can not control that airspace. So, you can't legally deliver squat with anything unmanned.
• The FAA has already given UPS permission to violate all of those laws, and the airspace rights. They can fly shipping drones everywhere now, not just in the seven test areas....
• The FAA can only approve drones, after exhaustive testing, which has not been done. There has been nothing exhaustive about any of this, other than the hot air the FAA is spurting.
• There are already rules in place for drones exceeding 250 pounds, and yet basically no rules on the maintenance on these drones. Unlike manned aircraft that someone would most likely notice an issue.

If you do a little digging, there have been incidents in the testing as well. I was going to link those as will be the FAA wont let me log in for some reason to find it, I can't post them yet either.

There is a flip side to this as well. Much of the drone advancement has not come from big companies. It has come from hobbyists. What will happen to that once it isn't a hobby?
There are also lots of RC companies, Jobs, etc. That will go away.

How much "Drone" stuff does Futaba make percentage wise to all of their products? Simple answer, not much. Yet their revenue was over 600 million last year.....
There are lots of RC companies that do not make "Drone" stuff out there, that will go bust.

The AMA template that they released is nothing more than for the AMA, and I don't suggest that people just include that in what they send the FAA in the comments area.
Any defense we have to this, has to be from legal aspects. Not someone at the AMA that prays they get approved fields.

Write your Senators, Write the President, write anyone else you can think of.

This isn't going away, and if it goes into effect it will be to late to do anything about it unless we can convince the Supreme Court to step in.

Write them too......

"Airspace is owned, by the land owner.
"The FAA can not take airspace without compensation."

There's an interesting discussion of these points here:

https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownersh...over-property/

A few significant points:
- The air is generally a public highway and the airspace overhead is part of the public domain.
- A landowner’s property interest in the land extends to the airspace directly over the property, to the extent that the airspace can be used to benefit the underlying land.
- The dividing line between the portion of the airspace in the public domain and the portion protected as an incident of land ownership against invasions by aircraft, is the line delineated by the Federal Aviation Administration as the minimum safe altitude of flight.
- Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.

Is legal action likely as a result of increased commercial drone activity, especially at low altitudes over people? Absolutely. But there is a well-established public right of access and use, and the FAA has the regulatory duty to decide where the boundaries are.